Punishments Meted Out for Previous Similar ‘Peeping Tom’ Offences in NUS Are The Same

By
George Yang
-

During the long weekend, people were either out of their house in Shilin Night Market or Jewel Changi.

And for people who stayed at home, they would have read multiple stories about a certain showering incident in NUS.

Or to be specific, a peeping tom who filmed a lady showering, and got off with a mere apology letter and a one-semester suspension.

No doubt people weren’t happy, and not one, but two petitions were set up.

NUS has since responded, saying that they would be forming a committee to look at this issue.

While it takes a crisis for a change, some people wondered whether this was the only case.

Well, turns out that this kind of “punishment” isn’t new: it’s been meted out to similar offences in NUS, and honestly speaking, that itself is more disturbing.

NUSSU – NUS Students United Facebook Page Released a Summary of Board of Discipline Cases for the Past 3 Academic years

Two days ago, the NUSSU – NUS Students United Facebook Page uploaded a pdf that summarised all the discipline cases for the last three years.

According to them, these documents were retrieved from NUS internal student portal that are only accessible to students.

The document related offences made by students and the punishments, and it included an array of offences from cheating during examinations to trespassing to…of course, sexual harassment.

So, for sexual harassment, what do we have?

Here are some of cases and the punishments in AY 15/16 (Note: Just some, not all):

Offence:
Student had harassed several female students from NUS hostels and insulted the modesty of a woman by uttering obscenities to her over the phone. He also perpetuated the harassment of a female by editing a photograph of her and uploading it onto the Internet. In addition, he had stolen female undergarments from NUS hostels.

Results:
Police Case: Student was sentenced to 18 months of supervised probation.

The student was:

  • suspended from his candidature until the end of Semester 2 AY2015/16 (two semesters);
  • deemed ineligible to be granted any form of on-campus housing and barred from all on-campus housing premises for the remaining period of his candidature;
  • mandated for counselling and assessment;
  • mandated to submit a Letter of Apology to the victim of the offences;
  • fined S$1,000/-; and
  • issued an official reprimand.

Offence:
Student breached a disciplinary sanction issued against him by the Office of Student Affairs which barred him from NUS hostel premises. He entered an NUS hostel into a female student’s room and outraged her modesty. Student had also lied during investigations.

Result:
The student was:

  • suspended from his candidature until the conclusion of Semester 2 AY2015/16 (two semesters);
  • deemed ineligible to be granted any form of on-campus housing and barred from all on-campus housing premises for the remaining period of his candidature;
  • mandated to continue with counselling sessions;
  • fined S$1,000/-; and
  • issued an official reprimand.

Offence:
Student had trespassed into a female toilet and peeped at a female student as she was showering. Student was also found in possession of women’s clothing and undergarments at that time.

Result:
Police Case: Student’s case was still under Police investigation when the BOD took place. Student’s case is currently pending recommendations by the Attorney-General Chambers. The BOD made the interim decision (which was later extended for another three months) that the student:

  • had his case reviewed pending the outcome of the Attorney-General Chambers, or after a period of three months from the date of the interim decision by the BOD;
  • was deemed ineligible to be granted any form of on-campus housing and barred from all on-campus housing premises during the interim period; and
  • mandated to continue with psychological treatment.

Offence:
Student had trespassed into a female toilet and filmed a female student as she was showering.

Result:
Police Case: Student was issued a 12-month conditional warning in lieu of prosecution by the Police.
The student was:

  • deemed ineligible to be granted any form of University on-campus housing and barred from all on-campus housing premises for the remaining period of his candidature;
  • mandated for counselling and psychological assessment;
  • mandated to write an unreserved Letter of Apology to the victim;
  • fined S$500/-; and
  • issued an official reprimand.

Now, do note that while the above case looks like the incident that’s gone viral, it’s a different case altogether: this happened in AY15/16, which means it took place almost three to four years ago.

There are more (what was listed above was just a few cases in AY15/16) – if you’re free you can read all of them here:

But I’d reckon you get the gist; the punishment seems consistent throughout the years, and let’s just say that subjectively speaking, it’s consistently lenient.

Moral of the story? Technically speaking, the perpetrator in the latest case didn’t get any special treatment.

Unless you count the fact that being viral is “special treatment” lah.

If you watch at least 10 minutes of brain rot content daily, you must know this:

Read Also:

Advertisements
 
George Yang
Email: [email protected]